Welcome To The Henhouse, Mr. Fox!
George Bush is going for his veto pen, it seems, for the very first time since he got into The White House, in order to take a stand for...Arab control of our ports? The New York Times Op-Ed page says:

If President Bush follows through on his threat, he'll be making a strange choice for his first veto after more than five years in office. After giving a pass to a parade of misbegotten Congressional initiatives and irresponsible budget packages, he'd be choosing to take a stand over the right to hand control of operations at major American ports to a company based in Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates, and controlled by that government.

... The issue is not, as Mr. Bush is now claiming, a question of bias against a Middle Eastern company. The United Arab Emirates is an ally, but its record in the war on terror is mixed. It is not irrational for the United States to resist putting port operations, perhaps the most vulnerable part of the security infrastructure, under that country's control. And there is nothing in the Homeland Security Department's record to make doubters feel confident in its assurances that all proper precautions will be taken.

The Bush administration has followed a disturbing pattern in its approach to the war on terror. It has been perpetually willing to sacrifice individual rights in favor of security. But it has been loath to do the same thing when it comes to business interests. It has not imposed reasonable safety requirements on chemical plants, one of the nation's greatest points of vulnerability, or on the transport of toxic materials. The ports deal is another decision that has made the corporations involved happy, and has made ordinary Americans worry about whether they are being adequately protected.

This is the part where Crid starts yelling that we all just hate Bush. By the way, Amy, what do you have against Kerry? Contrary to the version that Rove and flunkies successfully painted of him, I find Kerry to be one of the most consistent and principled figures in politics today. Unlike the dangerously unstable religious-nut in chief, Bush.

Patrick
at February 23, 2006 4:14 AM

Aw, C'mon, Patrick, lift your sweater and shake for us a little bit... What EXACTLY troubles you about the ports deal, and Bush's judgment in pursuing it? Also, why did you choose the word "unstable"? Up next to "religious nut", it's like you're implying there's a holy war.